Ancient solicitor struck off for a second time … NCAT sets a “marker for the profession” … Overcharging, misappropriation, failure to account … The usual chicanery … Naaman Zhou at the Bureau de Spank 

AN 86-year-old previously disbarred solicitor has found himself again struck off the jam roll for professional misconduct involving a range of misadventures. 

Bruce Hocking was found to have mishandled clients’ money, misappropriated funds, overcharged clients and attempted to mislead the Law Society – according to findings by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. 

An exhaustive judgment from NCAT rejected Hocking’s defences and ordered him off the roll, for the second time in his career, to “set a marker to members of the profession”.  

Dennis himself ran into trouble with the stipes in 2015 with alleged skulduggery ranging from overcharging, failing to account for money, and unauthorised transfer of funds.  

Hocking became a solicitor in 1953, and 15 years later was charged with professional misconduct. He did not contest the charge and was struck off the roll only to be readmitted as a clerk in 1996. 

On March 4, 2014, the Law Society launched fresh proceedings alleging misconduct in the Equititrust matter, the Grossman matter, the Sons of Gwalia matter and the FEA matter. 

In Equitrust, DC Legal acted in a dispute between Equititrust, a mortgage lender, and a mortgagor. Hocking withdrew from the trust account about $35,000 on account of costs without proper authority. 

Later Equititrust got a Supreme Court order that DC Legal repay $30,000. It took nearly two years for the money to be made good. 

In Grossman the firm acted for a plaintiff in defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media. The matter was settled with a payment of $65,000 in favour of the plaintiff. This was held in DC’s trust account from where on November 17, 2011, $42,470 was transferred to the general office account for costs and disbursements. 

The Law Society found that the barristers’ fees in the matter totalled $21,570. Counsel were not paid until May 2012 and between November 2011 and May 2012 the office account was in overdraft for all but a few days. 

The solicitor’s conduct in the Grossman matter amounted to misappropriation, in an effort to keep his office afloat. 

In Sons of Gwalia Hocking acted to manage shareholders’ claims in the administration of the mining company. He failed to notify dividends from Sons of Gwalia received on behalf of clients; under-disclosed his costs; acted without instructions; dealt with trust funds improperly; and overcharged. 

The FEA matter, involving another administration, where Hocking offered to act for 63 shareholders for a fixed fee. Payments from clients were immediately appropriated to costs, without authority, prior to any work being done. 

Hocking was given 21 days to reply to the Law Society’s application, but he filed it after 20 months, in December 2015, alongside an application for a stay of proceedings. 

Hocking objected to the proceedings on three grounds: 

Hocking took issue with the structure of the Law Society’s application, saying it was not clear which listed particulars went to establish which grounds. The tribunal ruled that the Law Society should simply resubmit an amended application. 

With an amended application served on May 12, 2016, NCAT ruled Hocking’s complaints had been satisfied and it dismissed his interlocutory application. 

Following the interlocutory application, the tribunal dismissed Hocking’s defences in his amended reply.  

He claimed that the cases in question had been handled entirely by Bruce Dennis and others, and that he had no personal knowledge or personal benefit in any of them. 

The tribunal noted that he was unavailable for cross-examined on this evidence.  

“His affidavit has not been received fully into evidence, and his evidence has not been tested under cross-examination as he chose not to further participate in the proceedings.” 

Hocking fell under the definition of “principal”, so the instances of misconduct were his responsibility. He claimed this reflected “a lack of insight into the responsibility of a principal in a law practice”.  

The important grounds of professional misconduct were established.  

“While [Hocking] asserted that he should be excused, he failed to furnish any evidence in support of that assertion. He also failed to appear before the tribunal during the second hearing … from this, we infer that he recognised that his case was a hopeless one … These were grave breaches of the standards expected of solicitors [and] disciplinary orders serve to set a marker to members of the profession.” 

Hocking said he gave-up legal practice in June 2016 as he was too old and ill to continue. 

See: Law Society of NSW v Hocking  

N.B. Hocking’s only Facebook entry reads: 

“I have the Builders Range hot water installed. It was set at 50 degrees but I need to increase but my plumber said it could not be changed? What do I do.”